Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

Perhaps DirecTV will find a new way of hiding there outrageous "regional sports fee" like they did the DVR and HD fee ("advanced receiver fee").

"Deluxe program channel surcharge"???

I love Milwaukee...miss going to the State House, Goolsbys, Buck Bradley's, etc. Good times.

The Regional Sports Fee was just put into circulation by FIOS and will becoming to others as well. Outrageous, well I would say necessary. Things like $7 billion for the Dodgers for local rights is going to drive fees like that. I'd also note that the Advanced receiver fee for DIRECTV is applied to the whole house, rather than per box. So if you have someone like Time Warner or Charter, etc, you pay a dvr fee per dvr. Just my two cents.

Now I'm going to go to sleep thinking about Leon's and Kopp's frozen custard. Grrrrr.

I wouldn't expect directv to just start piling up the rsn fees. They will add more but they can't let it run away. That would not be a good selling point. Remember, these fees are not optional. They are transparent but still locked in.

If they could get comcast or the PAC 12 to go optional (and more per customer then), they'd probably do it in a heartbeat. But all want to be basic. Adding multiple fees won't save them.

As mentioned, Verizon has implemented a RSN fee as well. Directv's is $2.00 for existing customers only in zip codes impacted, about 20% of the country. $3.00 for new customers, same limited zip codes. Verizon charging $2.42, but not sure if it is limited to certain zip codes or not.

As mentioned, Verizon has implemented a RSN fee as well. Directv's is $2.00 for existing customers only in zip codes impacted, about 20% of the country. $3.00 for new customers, same limited zip codes. Verizon charging $2.42, but not sure if it is limited to certain zip codes or not.

As mentioned, Verizon has implemented a RSN fee as well. Directv's is $2.00 for existing customers only in zip codes impacted, about 20% of the country. $3.00 for new customers, same limited zip codes. Verizon charging $2.42, but not sure if it is limited to certain zip codes or not.

No wonder they are fighting so hard on the recent contracts (PAC12 comes to mind).

I've always seen programming as having channels like puzzle pieces in a box that make up the total cost of programming - at least until ala carte surfaces some day in the future - or else as a separate package, much like the Extra Pack is today.

With sports programming being among the most expensive, having it segregated for pricing would seem to make some sense, especially for those who don't prefer to subscribe to it.

Couldn't a problem with it be though if certain sports providers require a certain percentage of the providers customer base have it?
--
My understanding has been that's one of the biggest problems with ESPN, is they require a very high percentage of the customer base to have it (which means it would still have to be included in lower tier, lower cost packages, which still makes the costs of those packages higher than they otherwise would normally be).
--
I hope that makes sense.

Couldn't a problem with it be though if certain sports providers require a certain percentage of the providers customer base have it?--My understanding has been that's one of the biggest problems with ESPN, is they require a very high percentage of the customer base to have it (which means it would still have to be included in lower tier, lower cost packages, which still makes the costs of those packages higher than they otherwise would normally be).--I hope that makes sense.

Yes. Espn does that not only for the revenue from the provider but also to claim households when they sell advertising. It even plays a part in the obtaining product from leagues, etc, who want maximum exposure for their brand.

The drive to put a channel on the lowest tier possible is not trivial. And pushing it to a higher tier is not usually easy.

I've always seen programming as having channels like puzzle pieces in a box that make up the total cost of programming - at least until ala carte surfaces some day in the future - or else as a separate package, much like the Extra Pack is today.

With sports programming being among the most expensive, having it segregated for pricing would seem to make some sense, especially for those who don't prefer to subscribe to it.

How this all unfolds should be interesting.

Sports programming is a little like group insurance -- the more people in the risk pool, the cheaper the premiums for everyone. But when you start to cull out segments, the cost rises astronomically.

To have sports programming only for those who want it, you'd be looking at triple-figure subscriber prices, easily.

-- Ira

================================================"There are no solutions to complex problems" -- Stan Littman, longtime social studies teacher at The Bronx High School of Science

Sports programming is a little like group insurance -- the more people in the risk pool, the cheaper the premiums for everyone. But when you start to cull out segments, the cost rises astronomically.

To have sports programming only for those who want it, you'd be looking at triple-figure subscriber prices, easily.

Yep, going some form of a la carte does have big risks. Imagine a niche channel that is currently getting 25 cents from all of Directv's subscribers because it's in the basic bundle. But separate it out and only 10% of the customers want it. To stay at the same revenue level they'd have to charge $2.50, which would cause even more people to drop it, further driving up the cost.

Now do the math on a sports channel that's getting $3 or $4 a sub. Would 25-30% drop it? What if it's now $5-6 a month? What if 50-60% drop it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a proponent of some form of segmenting programming into smaller clusters or packages or limited a la carte, but any moves along this road would be highly disruptive.

.................... There are none so blind as those who can not see it in HD........... Directv customer since January 2000...........